Education Minister Dolores Cristina has announced that she has nominated a working group to finalise proposals establishing a children’s national policy by the end of the year.

Speaking on the second reading of the Protection of Children (Hague Convention) Bill, she said the working group was made up of experts and professionals from various ministries and other entities. They would be analysing the legal framework on the protection of children, the rights and responsibilities of authorities, the courts and other entities providing a service, including the education and social services sectors.

The national policy would provide guidelines on how to give the best protection possible to children, in particular to those vulnerable minors passing through difficult circumstances.

The working group would analyse the impact the changes in family life had on children and on society. It was crucial that one identified the lacunae in sectors providing services to children so that one could correct them and arrive at better solutions.

The minister thanked professionals working on the protection of children, in particular Appoġġ social workers who performed their duties in difficult circumstances where family situations were at times tense and could lead to violence.

Earlier, Mrs Cristina said both Parliament and the House Social Affairs Committee had earlier this year discussed other issues concerning the protection of children. Malta had signed and ratified a number of Council of Europe conventions which aimed at protecting children from abuse, prostitution and pornography.

Malta also had its own fostering and adoption laws. Another piece of legislation had set up the office of the Commissioner of Children which proved to be beneficial.

Opposition spokesperson for family affairs, Justyne Caruana praised the placing of the Bill on Parliament’s agenda as it raised the rights of the child higher on the national list of priorities.

She emphasised that it was useless for children to be given rights which were not enforceable. Children were not provided with adequate access to the judicial system and were not given an effective right to be heard. Referring to the introduction of the office of a children’s lawyer, she said resources were minimal and did not guarantee their rights.

A radical change was needed through legal amendments and by bringing into force a Children’s Act. Even third world countries had enacted legislation recognising children’s rights, yet it was only now that the Ministry for the Family was reviewing the national legislative framework with the aim of strengthening the rights of the child.

Children were disillusioned and suffered when they realised that they could not effectively claim their rights and do not find assistance. She said that it was an anomaly that although Malta was a signatory to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, this was not, as yet, enforceable.

The Hague Convention being ratified was the third such convention and as a ramification of a conscience that fostered children’s rights. Dr Caruana queried why the House was being asked to ratify this Convention when Malta had not yet signed it despite being authorised to do so since 2002. According to a 2008 European Commission decision, Malta was meant to exchange information on its ratification of the Convention by December 2009.

At a time when freedom of movement was easily exercisable it was important to have a legal framework which ensured protection of children and their right to spend time with both parents. Dr Caruana said that the Convention established such rules and also determined the operation of national authorities that were entrusted with the protection of children. The main responsibility rested with the court of the country in which the child is habitually resident. However, the courts of other countries in which the child happened to be, were also given the authority to consider measures which were urgent.

Considering Malta’s role in child trafficking and the incidence of entry of unaccompanied minors, it was important to introduce the proposed legislation to strengthen the legal framework on child abduction. The legislation would also protect children in cross-frontier placements which did not amount to adoption. An important aspect was that Contracting States would be assisted through the monitoring and review system to fulfil their obligations under the convention.

Dr Caruana praised an article of the proposed Bill which allowed Contracting States to refuse recognition of a measure taken by another Contracting State when the child was not heard.

However, she asked what measures would the government be taking to provide the department with sufficient resources to enable it to fulfil its obligations under the Bill.

Nationalist MP Edwin Vassallo described the Bill as a law aimed at protecting the child at a time when families moved between countries depending on opportunities for employment. This would not only assist Maltese who marry foreigners but also foreigners who take up residence and establish a family here.

He expressed concern, however, not with the legal draft of the Bill but with its interpretation. What was needed to make child protection more tangible was awareness and a social conscience.

Malta’s challenge was to produce persons with a social conscience who embrace a culture of values. This, he said, was also the challenge of our education system.

Mr Vassallo criticised the increasing costs incurred by spouses who initiate proceedings for separation, saying that often it was the unaffordable costs of such proceedings that constrained parents to reach an amicable settlement. While this was, at times, positive it was not beneficial when spouses were forced to agree to a settlement which was prejudicial to them only to be able to reduce costs.

He asked whether persons involved in separation proceedings were provided with assistance to verify whether the proceedings promised to them by their lawyer had truly been initiated and whether the bill issued to them was valid and due.

It was at times detrimental for children when parents are constrained to accept a settlement and it was often women who were forced to accept a low amount of maintenance. It was difficult to speak of the common good and be correctly understood, since egoism was almost becoming institutionalised.

At times, children were orphans even though their parents were still alive, since some separated spouses preferred not to have their children with them during weekends.

Mediation was no longer reaching its aim of assisting spouses to re-establish their relationship, since it was often too late for this when they were seen by mediators. The House Social Affairs Committee was told that children often were seen as assets, with mediators being limited to help the parents divide their assets.

Mr Vassallo said that administrative bureaucracies at times put obstacles to parents who were separating; such issues should be ironed out so as to ensure a better protection for children.

He criticised the current situation where young children were on medication because of the trauma they were passing through because their parents were separating. There were instances of children being taken to police headquarters because a parent accused another of abusing the child.

The debate continues.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.